|
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in s.com: On Jan 30, 8:03�pm, " wrote: previous post stuff snipped At last, an amateur extra licensee besides Hans Brakob who admits what has been visible for years. The old paradigms are no longer worth a pair of pennies. Which old paradigms, Len? What should the old paradigms be replaced with? Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams, or even nickle Extras such as myself now are at a crossroads. They can either accept the change for what it is, or become like little neutron stars, perhaps embracing their hatred, perhaps clanning together to reminisce about the good old days when hems were really hams. Perhaps not much consolation however in the fact that they will have become irrelevant. How do they suddenly become irrelevant, Mike? If they gone on with their lives, operate on the bands in the same manner they've operated for years, if they check into nets, chase DX, operate in contests--where does irrelevant become reality? My experience leads me to suspect that most will choose the latter. Too bad, that. What odd twist of fate leads you to your present state of gloom and doom? The new paradigm IMO should be that hams should now be expected to advance their technical skills and knowledge. The days when a Ham's worth was measured by motor skills and auditory processing ability are gone. Please don't use the word "paradigm", Mike. It has bad ju-ju associated with it. We don't "market the migration", "enter into a bold new paradigm", "become proactive" or "think outside the box". Hams have never ever been one dimensional, nor do all radio amateurs march in lock step. Most of the hams I've known in over four decades in amateur radio have more than one area of interest. Most pride themselves on the sum of their skills, not in only a single one. I'm planning on moving on and am excited by the new potential. What new potential has now been offered that wasn't there last month? What are you going to do? I'm planning to do what interests me. Dave K8MN |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams, I've yet to see anyone ever post any "proof" of this claim. Personally, I've never encountered it on the air. I've never looked up the callsign of someone who has been licensed and made a decision not to communicate with them on the basis of their callsign. Neither has any other ham operator I'm aware of. In thousands of contacts I've had, and listened to, I've never heard someone shunned on their basis of their license class, or their lack of a morse code examination. Oh, I'm sure there are some out there. I'm sure some ham operators out there still believe in Santa Claus too. There are probably a few Gay Pagan Dyslexic hams out there as well. Should I characterize ham radio, or even "many" ham radio operators, on the basis of those claims? No. 73 kh6hz |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
On Feb 1, 8:15 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:35:34 -0500, Leo wrote: On 31 Jan 2007 15:33:35 -0800, wrote: On Jan 30, 8:03?pm, " wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message "Dee Flint" wrote in message "Bob Brock" wrote in message On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, " wrote: snip Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely, or respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc.. The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or callsign. *tsk*. Sucked in again - hook, line and sinker. Poor guy. Just can't help himself! why does Jim think he ahs the right to be called by His name he certainly does not object to others not being called by theirs Thou shalt not take Jim's name in vain. |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
On Feb 3, 7:38 am, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 03:11:36 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote: Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams, I've yet to see anyone ever post any "proof" of this claim. bull**** or at least then you have not read Robeson in RRAP Gunny Robesin, Wince Fiscus, Larry tRoll, Bruce Benyon, Dick Carrol/ SK, Val Germann, ... |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
On Feb 3, 5:28�am, wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:15 pm, wrote: On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:35:34 -0500, Leo wrote: On 31 Jan 2007 15:33:35 -0800, wrote: On Jan 30, 8:03?pm, " wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message "Dee Flint" wrote in message "Bob Brock" wrote in message On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, " wrote: snip Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely, or respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc.. The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or callsign. *tsk*. *Sucked in again - hook, line and sinker. Poor guy. *Just can't help himself! why does Jim think he ahs the right to be called by His name he certainly does not object to others not being called by theirs Thou shalt not take Jim's name in vain Why not? He does. He's about as vain as any morse monkey. :-) [see dumpster diving for transceivers under $100 cost, see "having friends and neighbors over to admire his work," see stories of travail of teen-agers taking many busses to reach a very official FCC Field office, etc.] beep, beep LA |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
|
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
From: Mike Coslo on Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:43:36 -0600 wrote in On Jan 30, 8:03?pm, " wrote: previous post stuff snipped At last, an amateur extra licensee besides Hans Brakob who admits what has been visible for years. The old paradigms are no longer worth a pair of pennies. Which old paradigms, Len? tsk, tsk, ol' cranky spanky jes' cain't take phrases... :- What should the old paradigms be replaced with? Element one is gone. CAREFUL! Pedantry rulez! "Factual error!" It be gone from the test suite toot sweet. The new paradigm IMO should be that hams should now be expected to advance their technical skills and knowledge. The days when a Ham's worth was measured by motor skills and auditory processing ability are gone. Hmmm..."motor skills." Does that apply to their MOUTH? "Auditory processing ability." Well, so many hear only what they want to hear so I guess they DO have some skill at that... :-) I'm planning on moving on and am excited by the new potential. Good for you! Way to go! Ya know, onct upon a time long ago in a land far, far away I got assigned to a large HF station in the military. Very impressive to my mind then. Caused me to (eventually) do an about-face on life career goals. Quit Art Center School of Design, went to collitch classes to learn electronic engineering, worked at that until about last week. :-) Got all the collitch degrease I need, no lube jobs to personnel departments needed either. Had a VERY interesting career, fun, challenge, doing what I really liked doing. Liked it so much I did my own electronic and "radio" projects as a hobby, have an indoor workshop to do that, been doing that for 40 years in there. Now I've been chided, castized, categorized, pilloried and profiled all on acount of NOT GETTING A HAM LICENSE *FIRST*! MORAL-ETHICAL FELONY! Oooo, Oooo! :-) Now, what I started out to do in here (and a few other places) was to advocate elimination of the code test. Vigorously. Not to get a "ham ticket." [we already have a coupon for ham at the supermarket...saving it for Easter time] That was DONE. FCC 06-178 is ESTABLISHED FACT and WILL BECOME *LAW* in roughly three weeks (give or take a few days depending who reads this stuff when...). What are you going to do? I can care less what ol' Spanky gonna do. What I saw him do is ten kinds of hypocritical "enthusiasm" and the usual denial of all his harping about his beloved morse goad. He gonna go on and on and on about his 'history' subjects that he writes about AS IF he were a witness, etc. He got his lil' red-hatted morse monkey helping him post, too. Maybe I'll think about getting one o them thar "ham tickets" (rather have some Lakers tickets). Maybe I won't. What will it hep me do? "Communicate around the world?" Did that, got lots of T-shirts. "Learn 'radio'?" Already did that, too, made money at it. [collitch degrease did NOT help me 'lubricate the ways' was only a personal perq] "Join a pool of trained radio operators?!?" Ya gotta be kidding! WTF did they think I did a half century ago?!? "Show my 'dedication' to the ARS?!?" WTF do they think the 'ARS' *IS*?!? If I want or need spiritual guidance I'll go down to All-Saints Church on the end of my street and get help from Pastor Midtlyng. He is closer to God than all these Mighty Masters, the Macho Morsemen, will ever be. The Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse are still riding but unshod. They've tried to shoo off others and lost their footing. Poor babies. Amateur professionals. LA |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
From: Leo on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:42:17 -0500 On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote: On Feb 1, 5:01?pm, Leo wrote: Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his misinformation? I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without fail! That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo". But you will not admit it. Please demonstrate! :-) I give him mebbe four days, then he can't resist the URGE any longer! Denial ain't no river in Egypt. He ain't no sphinx either. [his opinion sometimes stinx tho'...] How about a hint on how the Canadians are feeling about their southern neighbor's amateur radio regulation changes? I be most curious about that. Haven't had the time to surf the 'net to some of the Canadian ham sites to look in. Hah! I'll bet that Canadians don't much give a diddly darn about all the Ugly Americans beeping around their bushes down here! :-) Shalom, LA |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 1, 7:42�pm, Leo wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote: On Feb 1, wrote: Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his misinformation? I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. *Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *Every time - without fail! That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo". But you will not admit it. Please demonstrate! It's already been demonstrated many times, "Leo". K8MN wrote: "Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his misinformation?" Which is exactly what Len does: posts misinformation (factual errors). And you ("Leo") replied: "I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure." Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some would call that "lying", btw. Then you wrote: "Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without fail!" Note that last sentence: "Every time - without fail!" All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those postings. Then note how few of his factual errors I have actually challenged/ corrected here. Therefore, your claim of "Every time - without fail!" has already been demonstrated to be false. Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here. There's your demonstration. Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can. And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either. So it's really a moot point, "Leo". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
|
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
Dave Heil wrote in
hlink.net: What odd twist of fate leads you to your present state of gloom and doom? You can contact me off list if you want to know why I have developed a different attitude toward the people who have a problem with people like me and will probably have a much bigger problem with people who have no code test at all. I won't discuss it here. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
"KH6HZ" wrote in :
"Mike Coslo" wrote: Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams, I've yet to see anyone ever post any "proof" of this claim. And I sir, do. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On 3 Feb 2007 12:46:59 -0800, "
wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:42:17 -0500 On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote: On Feb 1, 5:01?pm, Leo wrote: Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his misinformation? I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without fail! That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo". But you will not admit it. Please demonstrate! :-) I give him mebbe four days, then he can't resist the URGE any longer! Pretty close - almost two days! Denial ain't no river in Egypt. He ain't no sphinx either. [his opinion sometimes stinx tho'...] How about a hint on how the Canadians are feeling about their southern neighbor's amateur radio regulation changes? I be most curious about that. Haven't had the time to surf the 'net to some of the Canadian ham sites to look in. Good question - other than announcements stating that code testing was ending down there, I haven't seen much discussion on the subject. The great code test debate was settled here a while back with little fanfare - and surprisingly little mudslinging between the two sides. Probably the same down there - this little corner of heaven notwithstanding..... :) And the world did not end! (doomsayers take note) :) Next up looks like a new "Foundation" licence category may be on the way, to encourage those who only want to communicate using simple ham radios to join in. This license would require bare minimum study and testing - after all, using one of the modern 2-meter handhelds isn't any more complex than using an FRS handheld - add how to use a repeater, and some simple procedures and protocol, and they're good to go! (Australia and England have already done this, IIRC). Wonder if that's something which will start up down your way too? (or perhaps the Tech license already fills this requirement?) I'd bet that discussion would keep the 'regulars' on this group busy for the next decade! Hah! I'll bet that Canadians don't much give a diddly darn about all the Ugly Americans beeping around their bushes down here! :-) Heh! Shalom, LA 73, Leo |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
On Feb 3, 10:23�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote groups.com: On Feb 2, 10:43�pm, Mike Coslo wrote: wrote ups. com: On Jan 30, 8:03�pm, " g wrote: previous post stuff snipped * *At last, an amateur extra licensee besides Hans Brakob * *who admits what has been visible for years. * *The old paradigms are no longer worth a pair of pennies. Which old paradigms, Len? What should the old paradigms be replaced with? Element one is gone. In three weeks, yes. The hams who fought code elimination for so many years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams, or even nickle Extras such as myself now are at a crossroads. Do you think I am one of those you describe, Mike? Have you ever seen me display hatred for *any* amateur radio operator who follows the rules? * * * * Jim, I've picked up enough from your posts to believe that you are going to have some trouble when the new folks start come in, if I read my posts correctly. What sort of trouble, Mike? Hopefully the newbies won't sense it. * * * * But as a direct answer - I haven't seen any hatred in your posts. That's good. They can either accept the change for what it is, or become like little neutron stars, perhaps embracing their hatred, perhaps clanning together to reminisce about the good old days when hems were really hams. There's nothing wrong with opposing a change that one thinks is not a good idea. Of course there are good ways and bad ways of opposing a change. * * Of course not. Depends on just how they oppose it. Exactly. I propose that Hams who call new guys CB'ers, and idiots just might be doing it the wrong way. I agree! And I propose that those who refer to more-experienced/more- knowedgeable hams as "fossils", "dinosaurs", "Luddites", "beepers", and a host of other derogatory nicknames are doing it the wrong way, too. Perhaps not much consolation however in the fact that they will have become irrelevant. Why should any radio amateur be irrelevant? You misunderstand. Amateur radio isn't and won't be irrevelant. The "haters" will. Not will. Already are. My experience leads me to suspect that most will choose the latter. Too bad, that. That works both ways. The new paradigm IMO should be that hams should now be expected to advance their technical skills and knowledge. That's not a new paradigm at all. It's as old as amateur radio itself. In fact, it's a very old, traditional paradigm. * * * * Kinda an old paradigm. But kinda not either, With alomst 50 percent of Hams at the Technician level, it's more talk than walk. How? There's a whole bunch of factors going on. For one thing, the "Technician level" includes everyone from the VHF/ UHF centric ham who got his/her license 50-odd years ago, and the newcomer who got one last week. It includes hams who never passed a code test and hams who passed 5 wpm in front of the steely-eyed FCC examiner. Hams who passed the new 35 question Element 2, hams who passed the old pre-2000 30 question Element 2 (Novice) and 35 question Element 3A, (Tech) and pre-1987 hams who passed the even older Element 3 (General/Tech) written exams. It includes hams who are very active, hams who are totally inactive, and everything in between. And it includes hams who are waiting for Feb 23 so they can upgrade without a code test, and hams who have no interest in upgrading at all. Perhaps we will see a massive upgrading to General and Extra after Feb 23. I hope we do. License class is only one indicator of technical skills and knowledge. Basically it says that amateur radio operators are not simply users of radio appliances. IMHO. * * * * And we need more of that. Google my callsign for an example of a non-appliance station.... The days when a Ham's worth was measured by motor skills and auditory processing ability are gone. Operating skills are still a major part of amateur radio - and what hams should have and continue to develop. Whether or not they are tested doesn't mean those skills are no longer relevant. You're kind of combining a couple statements to come up with something else, Jim. My point is that technical knowledge and skills are not the only things a ham should know. IMHO, a "real ham" has technical knowledge, technical/practical skills, regulatory knowledge, and operating skills. I'm planning on moving on and am excited by the new potential. * * * * What are you going to do? Promote amateur radio - help other hams and wouldbe hams - enjoy building, fixing, operating, teaching, and learning. IOW, the same stuff I've been doing in amateur radio for almost 40 years. No new paradigm at all. We're going to hold beginners classes in everything from *soldering to component identification to simply operating a HF radio to running amplifiers. The whole shebang. No assumptions that the new guy or gal is knowledgeable or that they are an idiot and not worth the effort. That's excellent! * * * * I will hold that that is a bit of a change. Perhaps in detail, but not in basic philosophy. Take a look at the Glowbugs and Elecraft reflectors if you get the chance. Online Elmering and technical/operating discussions. All sorts of help to newcomers and oldtimers alike. And while they are both moderated reflectors, the moderators take a laid-back attitude and rarely if ever step in. Nor do they need to. I suggest you take a look at them if you are interested in either subject. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
And I sir, do. Where? A few idiots on the air? That would be akin to me classifying all hams according to Mark Morgan. |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
|
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
On Feb 3, 10:32 pm, wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 05:41:10 -0800, wrote: On Feb 3, 7:38 am, wrote: On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 03:11:36 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote: Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams, I've yet to see anyone ever post any "proof" of this claim. bull**** or at least then you have not read Robeson in RRAP Gunny Robesin, Wince Fiscus, Larry tRoll, Bruce Benyon, Dick Carrol/ SK, Val Germann, ... but I guess he is bllind to anything he doesn'twant to read He is Quitefine with selective reading. |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
wrote:
KH6HZThat would be akin to me classifying all hams according to Mark Morgan. there is your proof your expressed hate What hate? You're a self-proclaimed gay pagan dyslexic ham. Are all hams gay pagan and dyslexic? Categorizing all 'extra' class operators on the basis of the actions of one (or a few) would be akin to me classifying all hams as gay pagan dyslexics, using you as the poster boy. Sorry to burst your stereotype. |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
From: Leo on Sun, Feb 4 2007 9:21 am
On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote: On Feb 1, 7:42?pm, Leo wrote: On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote: On Feb 1, wrote: Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some would call that "lying", btw. Some might call that "the lure".... :) ...and some would, rightly, say that "Judge" miccolis just has his head up his ass... shrug All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those postings. Factual errors according to whom? With reference to what source? In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction? "Judge" Miccolis, Ultimate Authority of course. :-) "Professor Irwin Corey" is gone, so a replacement was needed. The slow must go on... You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you? It would save a lot of time looking them all up again! ...if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it would be appreciated! :) Specifics would be nice, too. Sigh...here we go seven years into the past...sort of like that old CBS program "You Are There." The one that opened with the announcer saying, "All things are as they were then...and you are there." Or even the old Lone Ranger program, "Come with us now to the days of yesteryear...and the thundering hooves of the grate hoarse Jimmie" [paraphrased] Therefore, your claim of "Every time - without fail!" has already been demonstrated to be false. Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement is simply conjecture. Reminds me of that great one-page cartoon once in CQ, "Vector Conjecture." [a take-off on all the Vector explanations of SSB by the phasing method] Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here. I'll bet he'd be crushed! :) Freshly-squeezed. From Florida (California only has frozen oranges now). There's your demonstration. Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate your claim. Oh, oh, here comes the "promise" of Extra-out-of-the-box." Seven years ago I was supposed to have "promised" something that had some kind of "moral imperative" to it, like "do it or forever be silent" and other assorted bull**** from the control freaks in here. :-( In a way that is good. Folkses won't discuss my even- earlier "promises" I made to certain ladies of my bachelor days! :-) phew Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can. Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim. Just a form of censorship imposed on others by those who like censorship. A moderated group would not suit your purpose either! Where else could you go but here to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all wrongs'? "Pathological?" My take on that was 'congenital.' "Captain Righteous!" One of the X-Men, soon to be in a Marvel Comics at your neighborhood newsstand! Picture the offspring of "Baitman" and "Oblivious Man." Mighty muskles all over in that tight suit of his, but wearing his shorts on the outside instead of inside. Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here? And encourage everyone to join them? Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back! You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever wonder why? We will never know. Captain Righteous will immediately shift to my "faults" and never, ever admit his "why." Mike Coslo didn't do anything wrong. Nobody wanted to join him so that all would have a happy, happy, we-all- think-the-same kaffeklatsch. The buzz should be about hive minds... And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either. Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is intentionally post misinformation? Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not come from Len himself? How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not misinformation? That's magical! :) "Everything I say is a lie." If it is a "lie" then that sentence cannot be true because it is encompassed by "everything." Ergo, I do not lie. But, I MUST be lying! :-) A classic conundrum. Jimmie trying to beat it. Boom, boom. On the other hand (besides four fingers and a thumb), maybe I WON'T go away? See, if I said I was "going," then that would be a lie...and, in order to fulfill the Mighty Masters of Macho Morse wishes that I am lying, then I must be planning to stay here. If I lie then I can't possibly be going. But, I am supposed to go, yet I haven't so there- fore I am telling the truth. But, but, I lie so there- fore I have to stay here (a fate worse than death?)? Please pass the Tylenol. So it's really a moot point, "Leo". Perhaps.... "Moot?" "Moot Court?" Captain Righteous imitating John Houseman's character on "Paper Chase?" This is Salem II, where heretics are tried on the trump test of FIRE on the charge of Whichcraft! Gather ye the wood to pile it higher around the stake...they want that stake to be cooked well-done. With A-1 Operator Sauce! beeeep, beeeep, LA |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
From: Leo on Sat, Feb 3 2007 11:07 pm
On 3 Feb 2007 12:46:59 -0800, " wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:42:17 -0500 On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote: On Feb 1, 5:01?pm, Leo wrote: How about a hint on how the Canadians are feeling about their southern neighbor's amateur radio regulation changes? I be most curious about that. Haven't had the time to surf the 'net to some of the Canadian ham sites to look in. Good question - other than announcements stating that code testing was ending down there, I haven't seen much discussion on the subject. Agreed. After a few days I looked around more and didn't see near as much talk on it. Of course, that was primarily a "southerner" thing (relatively speaking from northerners' point of view). The great code test debate was settled here a while back with little fanfare - and surprisingly little mudslinging between the two sides. Probably the same down there - this little corner of heaven notwithstanding..... :) NOT so down here. :-( Interestingly, www.qrz.com seemed to have deliberately down-played the whole thing. www.eham.net did not. Of course "QRZ" is also a business and can't alienate one group v. another without risking some loss. ARRL is playing it cagey now and won't commit much of an opinion...but their publishing part of their house must keep making a profit in order to survive. And the world did not end! (doomsayers take note) :) Now, THAT's debateable! :-) In USA amateur radio history since 1934, FCC 06-178 may go down as the premiere earth-shattering event, even more than the cessation of amaterur operations due to our involvement in WW II. Never before had morse code testing been totally eliminated in the 73-year span of our FCC. Hadn't happened in the three previous radio regulating agencies here, either, not since 1912. Next up looks like a new "Foundation" licence category may be on the way, to encourage those who only want to communicate using simple ham radios to join in. This license would require bare minimum study and testing - after all, using one of the modern 2-meter handhelds isn't any more complex than using an FRS handheld - add how to use a repeater, and some simple procedures and protocol, and they're good to go! (Australia and England have already done this, IIRC). I've seen a few things on the "Foundation" license but haven't gauged it. There were also a few hit remarks from certain types in the yew-kai about that. I was bouyed in spirit by the Australians about radio in general for years. All across the 'classes' and that may be due to their 'last frontier' spirit having vast spaces of not much and begun after the USA revolted. All kinds of parts stores/vendors on the web, activity websites, etc. New Zealand, too, although smaller yet the distances are still vast. I've always wondered if Canada was going to be infected by nearness of certain American opinions/bigotry. Sharing an immense border and proximity of so many large urban areas at the border would seem to invite some kind of social cross-pollination. Looking back, I'd say that Canada has NOT been polluted, but has remained relatively independent. I applaud that. Wonder if that's something which will start up down your way too? (or perhaps the Tech license already fills this requirement?) I'd bet that discussion would keep the 'regulars' on this group busy for the next decade! The only thing I've seen were a few Petitions to the FCC and some scattered nattering. Most of the olde- tyme vocal hammes here look down at Techs as kiddies in radio. They TOLERATE them in the main, but seldom regard them as anything close to equals. That's a pity here since Techs now make up HALF of all US amateur licensees. Sort of like the French Revolution with the "royalty" minority represented by the olde-tyme morsemen and a huge, huge group of "commoners" (Techs) that have begun "storming the Bastille." Or another analogy, the "storming of the Winter Palace." Da? :-) However, the little FRS handhelds have been quietly out-pacing ALL the multi-button ham HTs. In the 2003 transcript of the FCC's panel on overviewing "Part 15" devices (unlicensed radios), one of the panelsts said that FRS radios "now" (2003) numbered 15 MILLION here. In numbers, that's on par with CB, a much much older radio service. The usual pooh-pooh attitude from the olde-tymers is that they are "short range." Heh, AS IF those olde-tymers were all Collossi standing astride continents! With 40 to 100 W PEP and at the mercy of the ionosphere at HF, they could talk "long distances" any time they felt like doing so? No way. Between FRS, CB, and cell phones down here the USA has roughly 130 MILLION two-way radios, all unlicensed, useable by ordinary citizens. Toss in all the R-C for modelers, Bluetooth and IEEE 802 wireless links, all the WLANS, wireless doorbells, wireless security cameras, cordless telephones, etc., and there's maybe another 50 million unlicensed radios working away here. Somehow those things just don't penetrate the USA olde-tymer's heads. They can't understand that 1950s paradigms just don't apply any more. Those old paradigms aren't worth two cents now. But, the olde-tymers are undaunted and proceed AS IF time had stood still while they stood on ornate crumbly-clay pedestals. :-( Hej, LA |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
wrote:
your hate you enagment in a multiyear effort to hound me of the USENET and prehaps off the air lmao. you're seriously deluded. I can "hound" you off usenet any time i want. I simply killfile you. |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
From: John Smith I on Sat, 27 Jan 2007
13:56:45 -0800 ---Following was posted about two weeks ago and deserves highlighting--- ================================================== ==================== To Whom It May Concern: Let us take a little bit better look at this "unwritten policy" here, see if we can make any logical analysis about it-get the "feel" for it, if you will. First, there are quite a bit of threads which make up the rec.radio.amateur.??? "family of threads": rec.radio.amateur.antenna rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc rec.radio.amateur.dx rec.radio.amateur.equipment rec.radio.amateur.homebrew rec.radio.amateur rec.radio.amateur.misc rec.radio.amateur.packet Do you see one which is close to say "rec.radio.amateur.new- licensees?" Or, "rec.radio.amateur.license .help?" "rec.radio.amateur.recruitment?" No, you will not find a one. Sorry thing ... So, let us examine the existing threads, do any seem to be active in new recruitment/licence help? No, you don't see much of that either. OK. So, examine them again, see may of these threads engaged in dialog about how to recruit and spark interest in potential-new licensees? No, not much of that either ... Hmmm, so what do we see? We see a bunch of protective, selfish, self-serving individuals out to protect their "turf!" Now, why don't we have more "new-blood" here? What, speak up, I can't seem to hear you? Well, I'll make one exception, Dee, she has expressed some desire, willing to attempt and willingness towards the above. What we really have is a bunch of these "high-mighty-self-centered-jerks" attempting to get their new club house built and escape there firmly shutting the door behind them, so as to BAR any of the above from occurring. ================================================== ============ As of 5 Feb 07 the above is unfortunately true in here. With a couple of exceptions (Dee and Hans Brakob of the past), and some mentions by a few "non-regulars," all the "regulars" have degenerated into their old habits of putting themselves on their self-built pedestals and sneering at others "not as good as They." That's the self-serving selfishness John speaks of. The best they can do is mouth old, trite phrases used in the 1930s. The year 2007 is over seven decades from that. Society and technology has changed remarkably from that old time. Most of these "old regulars" love to heap abuse on me, a person who has been IN "radio" since 1952 but has "failed" to get an amateur radio license. [my Commercial First 'Phone granted in 1956 is somehow cast aside in their personal vendettas and vitriol] Hey, no sweat, I've heard all of that acidity long before. Doesn't faze me. I'm still undecided on whether or not to take advantage of the NO-CODE-TEST regulations coming up. Of what advantage would it be? For me or anyone not licensed as an amateur? Our society is fully engaged in using "radio" in many (and remarkable) ways, usually without any need for an amateur license. What "need" is it? Belonging to an "exclusive community?" Dozens of ways to do that anywhere in this country. To belong to a "proud heritage" of pioneers? Sorry, but the vast majority of actual radio pioneering was done by the professionals, the entrepreneurs, the academics, the folks in the electronics industry. Perhaps to be able to "sign" an amateur station call sign behind their name? That's a misuse of honors, a copy-catting of pretend significance, of puffing out enlarged egos. Passing any amateur radio test is NOT any sort of academic achievement. If you can't get into the electronics industry or academia, then the Masons, Shriners, Elks or Moose or similar fraternal orders can satisfy "belonging to a 'proud tradition of fraternalism'" and they probably have a nice bar in their local hang-out. If you happen to just LIKE radio-electronics then it is best NOT ever to mention that; olde-tymers don't want to hear "fun" expressed unless it is to THEIR "standards" of having fun. |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 4, 9:21�am, Leo wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote: On Feb 1, wrote: On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote: On Feb 1, wrote: Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his misinformation? I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. *Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *Every time - without fail! That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo". But you will not admit it. Please demonstrate! It's already been demonstrated many times, "Leo". K8MN wrote: "Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his misinformation?" Which is exactly what Len does: posts misinformation (factual errors). And you ("Leo") replied: "I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure." Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some would call that "lying", btw. Some might call that "the lure".... *:) Some might do that. But, by definition, if a person intentionally makes an untrue statement, intending to deceive, that person is telling a lie. So what you are saying is that Len tells lies in order to "lure" others. Myself, I have never referred to anyone here as a liar, nor their statements as lies. Mistakes or errors, yes, but not lies. Then you wrote: "Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *Every time - without fail!" Note that last sentence: "Every time - without fail!" All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those postings. Factual errors according to whom? According to objective reality. *With reference to what source? Objective sources. In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction? Reality does that. For example, suppose someone stated that the distance from Tokyo, Japan, to Vladivostok, Russia, was 500 miles. That statement could be checked against paper maps, atlases, online mapping resources, etc. It turns out that the actual distance between those cities is more than 660 miles. Objective reality shows that the person who stated "500 miles" made a factual error. A mistake. See how easy that is? It's not a matter of belief or opinion, but of objective reality. You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you? Not handy ;-) *It would save a lot of time looking them all up again! Then note how few of his factual errors I have actually challenged/ corrected here. ...if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it would be appreciated! *:) *Specifics would be nice, too. "There's a flaw in your cunning plan, Baldrick!" Although the number of Len's factual errors here is considerable, it is by no means beyond my capabilities to provide a total, and specifics. However, that would be counterproductive. Because as soon as I did so, you would say that I had taken the lure and verified your claim of "Every time - without fail!" IOW, you would say that once I provide details of a factual error made by Len, it is no longer a factual error that I let pass, and instead became one more "lure" that I went after. Of course some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you. So the only way for me to prove that your claim of "Every time - without fail!" is false, is for me to leave at least some of Len's factual errors alone. Which I have already done. Now of course someone else could come along and point out one or more of Len's factual errors here, and then show that I had left those error(s) alone. But then you could claim that the reason I left those error(s) alone was that I had not identified it/them as factual error(s) in the first place. And again, some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you. Therefore, your claim of "Every time - without fail!" has already been demonstrated to be false. Which it has. Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement is simply conjecture. If I were to fall for your cunning plan, you would immediately disqualify any specific example I would give, by employing the discussion listed above. Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here. I'll bet he'd be crushed! *:) He certainly gets upset enough over them. A mature person would simply accept the corrections and say thank you to the person who pointed out the factual error. There's your demonstration. Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate your claim. Yes, I have. To say more would be to fall victim to your cunning plan. Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can. Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim. Maybe not for you. Others have a very different experience. Just a form of censorship imposed on others by those who like censorship. Not according to the definition of "censorship". *A moderated group would not suit your purpose either! * Actually, it would. I participate in several moderated email reflectors. They work and are lots of fun. Where else could you go but here to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all wrongs'? * "pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all wrongs'?"? That's not me at all. I'm simply correcting some of Len's errors and expressing an opinion. That really bothers him. Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here? *And encourage everyone to join them? I don't recall - who was that? Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back! Or maybe it didn't work. You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever wonder why? Actually, I have left rrap for months at a time, except to post the ARS license numbers. Check out google for my posting history. And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either. Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is intentionally post misinformation? Nope. Len doesn't always post misinformation. Some of what he writes is actually true! And it is you, not I, that says his factual errors are intentional. Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not come from Len himself? Look it up. How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not misinformation? I presumed that Len told the truth. Is that wrong? *That's magical! *:) You're saying it's magic if Len tells the truth here? That it is more logical to think that Len is telling untruths than to think that he is telling the truth? Interesting. Are you trying to lure Len into one of his rants against you? So it's really a moot point, "Leo". Perhaps.... We will see. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:16:22 GMT
wrote: As of 5 Feb 07 the above is unfortunately true in here. With a couple of exceptions (Dee and Hans Brakob of the past), and some mentions by a few "non-regulars," all the "regulars" have degenerated into their old habits of putting themselves on their self-built pedestals and sneering at others "not as good as They." ...except that your pronouncement isn't true. Incorrect, faulty, mistaken. Your whole reply is a REAFFIRMATION of what I wrote. :-) There are precious few potential radio amateurs appearing here. Incorrect, faulty, mistaken...except for "precious." The standout in here was Val Germann of Missouri, making "precious" noises about morse code. Germann has yet to upgrade from Tech. "Precious" can be applied to a pair of cute 4-year-olds who each got an amateur radio license in 1998. You have haunted this newsgroup for over a decade without bothering to take an amateur radio licensing exam, much less to pass one. A newsgroup is NOT amateur radio. No "license" is needed to either read or post in a newsgroup. You have NO AUTHORITY to demand all in here be licensed for anything. You aren't a new amateur radio op and you aren't likely to become one. I haven't been a "new" radio operator since 1953. I was granted a COMMERCIAL radio operator license 50 years ago...it is still on record although the FCC modified all three Radiotelephone Operator classes into on General class about 1985. Look it up in the FCC ULS if you must. You cannot foretell the future. No human has proven to be prescient. What you blurt out is nothing but a rude and insulting remark. Your posting style is full of insults and rudeness. Incorrect. I am direct, sometimes terse, and do not back down from rude, insulting control-freaks who love not radio but just to shove others around. As you have found, you reap what you sow. The only thing I've sown is some grass seed. That came up nicely. The California Pocket Gophers in this neighbor- hood attempted to eat it from below. They were gassed. The only "sow" encountered in the last decade have been some transgendered porcine types who thought they were gods of radio and attempted pushing many of us NCTA around. That's the self-serving selfishness John speaks of. You aren't a licensed radio amateur. Quite true. I am a LICENSED COMMERCIAL (professional) radio operator. The FCC said I was. Everyone who does not have an amateur radio license is not licensed in the amateur radio service. Of course. Obvious. You are being very redundant. As well as rotund. Going in circles, nowhere. Your posts are certainly self-serving. No. My computer(s) have no AI capability. They won't serve me anything. All they do is act like computers. I've never heard of self-serving selfishness. That was a FIGURE OF SPEECH, Herr Pedant. Everytime I use a figure of speech, you pedant in your pants. The best they can do is mouth old, trite phrases used in the 1930s. ...while you use the same, tired Stephen Wright jokes over and over. I do not know of this "Stephen Wright." For what it is worth, I am also a paid joke writer selling only ORIGINAL material. Would you like to see my AFTRA card? Your boast of getting that "Extra right out of the box" is itself seven years old. Your first post to this newsgroup took place over ten years ago. Irrelevant. I did not "boast" anything. That is your FABRICATION. My first post in any computer-modem venue took place in the first week of December, 1984. That was 22 years ago (and a fraction). In the period of 7 years, one can conceive a child, teach it all about morse code and English language comprehension sufficient to score correct written answers on an amateur radio test, get their picture published by the ARRL, then enter kindergarten. Have you done this? Has Miccolis done this? Have you EVER treated a human being in a friendly manner without ordering them around? There is "precious" little evidence of that in here...other than with a few like- minded morse-inflated ego types. You failed to mention your behavior here--the behavior which allows you to heap abuse on others without expecting it in return. Incorrect, Mistaken, False. You do not understand true debate and the exchange of opinions. You don't because you've never attempted to do that. What you EXPECT is gratuitous "congratulations" and the mistaken notion of innate "respect" you think is owed you...just because you once passed the highest-rate morse code exam and some extra questions. I am quite used to your type of personality, one of the self-inflated ego-driven variety. I've been immersed in social interaction with your kind all of my adult life. I've survived none the worse for wear...yet you are the bitter fabricator, the sore loser personified over a very recent federal agency decision and ruling. In regard to your failure to achieve an amateur radio license, you declared an interest in amateur radio spanning decades. Incorrect, Mistaken, Faulty. YOU fabricated some specialized "interest" out of my (several) statements expressing an interest in radio-electronics. I've explained of how my interest in radio came about as an adult: A fortuitous assignment to a large HF communications station while in the US Army. None of that involved "amateur radio." You've posted to an amateur radio interest newsgroup for better than a decade. I've written and edited in an amateur radio magazine over a decade before that. I've written letters on the advocacy of eliminating the morse code test. My advocacy in this newsgroup has been to eliminate the code test for an amateur radio license. That was stated out in the open in here during that whole decade. I have several friends who have been licensed radio amateurs for much longer than a decade, much longer than several decades. You've boasted that you would obtain the highest class U.S. amateur radio license "right out of the box" in a statement made seven years ago. I have not "BOASTED." That is your fabrication. I made a statement that I "could" based on the amateur radio written tests of that time. If all you have to attempt discrediting me is some FABRICATIONS, then Have you acted on obtaining that or any amateur radio license? I am not an actor and don't play one on TV. I've only done voice-overs. Would you like to see my AFTRA card? :-) [my Commercial First 'Phone granted in 1956 is somehow cast aside in their personal vendettas and vitriol] Hey, no sweat, I've heard all of that acidity long before. Doesn't faze me. Your commercial First Phone ticket is not an amateur radio license. I've never said it was anything but a "First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator License" to quote the FCC on my first certificate of that, or the colloquial "First 'Phone." This is not a commercial radio newsgroup. Yet all can see the usual subliminal ads for the ARRL in the Believers' evangelical parroting of their words and phrases. [St. Hiram be praised] A commercial license is "cast aside" by the FCC with regard to the obtaining of an amateur radio license. The FCC has NEVER "cast aside" my First 'Phone nor subsequent GROL. It is still in the FCC URL records and still current. The requirements for an amateur radio license are all explained in Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97.501 and following. The requirements for commercial radio operator licenses are given in regulations of Title 47 C.F.R. Part 13. Do you understand these instructions as they have been explained to you? If not, the court will appoint an attorney to assist you. You would have to meet the same amateur radio licensing requirements as anyone else before you'd be issued an amateur license. I've not said anything to the contrary. The LAW is quite clear enough on the issue of civil US radio. You seem confused as to the differences of LAW and your imaginings. YOU are NOT any law official. You are merely officious. I'll try to make this as uncomplicated as I can, Len: You would be able to operate an amateur radio station in the amateur bands. I am quite able to "operate an amateur radio station." With or without a license. You failed (once more) to make your point that it would be ILLEGAL to operate AS IF one were a licensed radio amateur if no US amateur radio license had been granted to that operator. Any radio operator license does NOT automatically ENABLE anyone to "operate an amateur radio station." ABILITY of anyone to "operate an amateur radio station" has nothing at all to do with licensing. The license is merely an AUTHORIZATION by the US federal government to operate. Do you understand the definition as it has been explained to you? If not, the court will appoint a dictionary to assist you. As they said in the TV control booth, "Take Black." In this case "Black's Law Dictionary." :-) As interesting as I find your statement, one who expresses interest in amateur radio, haunts an amateur radio newsgroup and boast that he is going to get the top license immediately must have found a reason to obtain an amateur radio license. No "BOAST" was ever made. I do not "HAUNT." I may PLAY at being a ghost on Halloween...and have. Boooo! I "express an interest" in ALL radio. So much so that I made electronics and radio a life career early- on, despite having an aptitude for (called "talent") and experience IN commercial illustration ("art" where the artist draws/paints/inks things as they really are). Why do YOU attempt constant "haunting" of anyone who does not agree with your mighty claims and boasts of "radio operation" to/from faraway lands? Why not tell us what you perceived your need to be? Why indeed? Have you understood my previous explanations as I've explained them to you? If not, the court will appoint a psychiatrist to assist and analyze you. You could live in a gated community with country club privileges. I live (in the southern house) back-yard to back-yard with a gated community called "Montelena." 44 homes built on 15 acres of what was undeveloped wilderness. That community has NO "country club" there. You could wear Gucci loafers and sip Campari in an ultra-expensive night spot. ? Is that one of your "requirements" for amateur radio? Strange. Strange. You cold live in an area which fights tooth and nail to prevent zoning changes which would change the neighborhood or you could belong to that very exclusive group of newsgroup crackpots which plagues groups in which it does not participate. Are you suffering from a plague? See medical assistance as soon as possible! Are you suffering from plaque? Seek dental assistance as soon as possible. "Fighting tooth and nail?" No nails were used in the attempt to change a local zoning board ruling, just the democratic processes of the neighborhood getting together (also meeting at the local church), petitioning, then speaking before the zoning commission in public. Neither were "teeth" involved. See your dentist regularly for better oral hygience. That will help keep your dentures in place when you snarl and grimace so much. Especially when you boil over and shout. That SINGLE LOCAL zoning incident resulted in a change from residential single-family homes to residential multiple family (apartments, condos, etc) homes. The gated community you and Miccolis refer to is the "Montelena" I mentioned above...which has only single-family homes now. Nothing whatsoever in that alleged "tooth and nail" debate involved any "radio" subjects, not even TV cable or satellite down- link, certainly not amateur radio antenna installations. Now, if your parroting Miccolis MANUFACTURED moral-ethical "fault" would stop we might all learn to get along. That was NOT a "radio" issue of any kind. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with "radio," either amateur or commercial. Do you understand those explanations as they have been given you? If not the court will appoint a two-by-four to lay across your head at no cost to you. Then you might have misdirected your haunting of newsgroups. Tsk. You don't have a ghost of a chance of understanding anything but "professional amateurism," do you? :-) It isn't up to you to worry over someone who uses his amateur radio callsign, Len. NO "worrying" was done. :-) A high degree of persistence in advocacy of eliminating the morse code test from license testing done over a period greater than two decades was done. That was just a POLITICAL matter that was finally settled by FCC 06-178 released on 15 Dec 06. Do you understand those explanations as they've been explained to you? If not the court will appoint someone of sound mind to attempt making you understand. You aren't involved. Yes, I was quite involved. FCC 06-178 resulted on the part of thousands who "involved" themselves in making their lawful comments to the US federal government. The code test for any class amateur radio license in the USA will be GONE very soon. Do you understand FCC Reports and Orders as they've been explained to you? If not, the court will appoint a federal attorney to explain the Consitution of the US and basic civics to you. Your plaintive cries over pretend significance and enlarged egos are those of an outsider shouting, "but look at what I've done!" I've never worked Frenchmen out of band. I've never had to "synchronize teleprinters" by means of on-off keying morse code in the 1980s. I've never served in the State Department and bragged about BEING "DX." Your continuing PRETENSE at being a near-equivalent god of radio through amateurism has been duly noted. By all readers of this newsgroup. You are able to have all of the fun you are capable of having by tinkering with electronics. "Tinkering?" :-) A working career that included duties of responsible project engineer is just "tinkering?!?" :-) That isn't amateur radio, but why let that bother you? "Amateur" is a regulatory definition of one who engages in an activity WITHOUT monetary compensation. That is ALSO the definition of a HOBBY. HOBBY. LICENSED amateur radio is what you should have written. LICENSED, AUTHORIZED by the only civil radio regulatory agency of the United States government. Have you under- stood the definitions as they were explained to you? If not, the court may appoint a bailiff to place you under arrest until medical science has come up with an explanation for your serious mental confusion. Lots of folks who aren't radio amateurs enjoy electronics. ...and you think ALL of them are monetarily compensated if they do not have federal authorization to transmit RF on certain bands with certain modulation modes according to federal regulations? Not so. See? That is your extreme CONFUSION. You mistakenly label "radio amateurs" as ONLY the "licensed." Your EGO has given way to logic and reason...but, then, everyone has already seen that... Is that sig of yours a misuse of honors or a copycatting of pretend significance? My end-of-message IDENTIFICATION is merely an E-MAIL FORWARDING ALIAS. See the header "From" line. My professional association (IEEE, 34 years) provides that forwarding alias free of charge to all IEEE Members. That one-way forwarding alias includes some "spam" filtering as an extra "filter" to remove unwanted advertising e-mail. Such a forwarding alias in little different than that used by the ARRL for amateur radio members, conveying no more significance than any other forwarding alias. Do you understand this e-mail forwarding definition as it has been explained to you? If not, the court will appoint yet another dead horse for you to beat upon. [...and the beat goes on...] LA |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:16:22 GMT
wrote: As of 5 Feb 07 the above is unfortunately true in here. With a couple of exceptions (Dee and Hans Brakob of the past), and some mentions by a few "non-regulars," all the "regulars" have degenerated into their old habits of putting themselves on their self-built pedestals and sneering at others "not as good as They." ...except that your pronouncement isn't true. Incorrect, faulty, mistaken. Your whole reply is a REAFFIRMATION of what I wrote. :-) There are precious few potential radio amateurs appearing here. Incorrect, faulty, mistaken...except for "precious." The standout in here was Val Germann of Missouri, making "precious" noises about morse code. Germann has yet to upgrade from Tech. "Precious" can be applied to a pair of cute 4-year-olds who each got an amateur radio license in 1998. You have haunted this newsgroup for over a decade without bothering to take an amateur radio licensing exam, much less to pass one. A newsgroup is NOT amateur radio. No "license" is needed to either read or post in a newsgroup. You have NO AUTHORITY to demand all in here be licensed for anything. You aren't a new amateur radio op and you aren't likely to become one. I haven't been a "new" radio operator since 1953. I was granted a COMMERCIAL radio operator license 50 years ago...it is still on record although the FCC modified all three Radiotelephone Operator classes into on General class about 1985. Look it up in the FCC ULS if you must. You cannot foretell the future. No human has proven to be prescient. What you blurt out is nothing but a rude and insulting remark. Your posting style is full of insults and rudeness. Incorrect. I am direct, sometimes terse, and do not back down from rude, insulting control-freaks who love not radio but just to shove others around. As you have found, you reap what you sow. The only thing I've sown is some grass seed. That came up nicely. The California Pocket Gophers in this neighbor- hood attempted to eat it from below. They were gassed. The only "sow" encountered in the last decade have been some transgendered porcine types who thought they were gods of radio and attempted pushing many of us NCTA around. That's the self-serving selfishness John speaks of. You aren't a licensed radio amateur. Quite true. I am a LICENSED COMMERCIAL (professional) radio operator. The FCC said I was. Everyone who does not have an amateur radio license is not licensed in the amateur radio service. Of course. Obvious. You are being very redundant. As well as rotund. Going in circles, nowhere. Your posts are certainly self-serving. No. My computer(s) have no AI capability. They won't serve me anything. All they do is act like computers. I've never heard of self-serving selfishness. That was a FIGURE OF SPEECH, Herr Pedant. Everytime I use a figure of speech, you pedant in your pants. The best they can do is mouth old, trite phrases used in the 1930s. ...while you use the same, tired Stephen Wright jokes over and over. I do not know of this "Stephen Wright." For what it is worth, I am also a paid joke writer selling only ORIGINAL material. Would you like to see my AFTRA card? Your boast of getting that "Extra right out of the box" is itself seven years old. Your first post to this newsgroup took place over ten years ago. Irrelevant. I did not "boast" anything. That is your FABRICATION. My first post in any computer-modem venue took place in the first week of December, 1984. That was 22 years ago (and a fraction). In the period of 7 years, one can conceive a child, teach it all about morse code and English language comprehension sufficient to score correct written answers on an amateur radio test, get their picture published by the ARRL, then enter kindergarten. Have you done this? Has Miccolis done this? Have you EVER treated a human being in a friendly manner without ordering them around? There is "precious" little evidence of that in here...other than with a few like- minded morse-inflated ego types. You failed to mention your behavior here--the behavior which allows you to heap abuse on others without expecting it in return. Incorrect, Mistaken, False. You do not understand true debate and the exchange of opinions. You don't because you've never attempted to do that. What you EXPECT is gratuitous "congratulations" and the mistaken notion of innate "respect" you think is owed you...just because you once passed the highest-rate morse code exam and some extra questions. I am quite used to your type of personality, one of the self-inflated ego-driven variety. I've been immersed in social interaction with your kind all of my adult life. I've survived none the worse for wear...yet you are the bitter fabricator, the sore loser personified over a very recent federal agency decision and ruling. In regard to your failure to achieve an amateur radio license, you declared an interest in amateur radio spanning decades. Incorrect, Mistaken, Faulty. YOU fabricated some specialized "interest" out of my (several) statements expressing an interest in radio-electronics. I've explained of how my interest in radio came about as an adult: A fortuitous assignment to a large HF communications station while in the US Army. None of that involved "amateur radio." You've posted to an amateur radio interest newsgroup for better than a decade. I've written and edited in an amateur radio magazine over a decade before that. I've written letters on the advocacy of eliminating the morse code test. My advocacy in this newsgroup has been to eliminate the code test for an amateur radio license. That was stated out in the open in here during that whole decade. I have several friends who have been licensed radio amateurs for much longer than a decade, much longer than several decades. You've boasted that you would obtain the highest class U.S. amateur radio license "right out of the box" in a statement made seven years ago. I have not "BOASTED." That is your fabrication. I made a statement that I "could" based on the amateur radio written tests of that time. If all you have to attempt discrediting me is some FABRICATIONS, then Have you acted on obtaining that or any amateur radio license? I am not an actor and don't play one on TV. I've only done voice-overs. Would you like to see my AFTRA card? :-) [my Commercial First 'Phone granted in 1956 is somehow cast aside in their personal vendettas and vitriol] Hey, no sweat, I've heard all of that acidity long before. Doesn't faze me. Your commercial First Phone ticket is not an amateur radio license. I've never said it was anything but a "First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator License" to quote the FCC on my first certificate of that, or the colloquial "First 'Phone." This is not a commercial radio newsgroup. Yet all can see the usual subliminal ads for the ARRL in the Believers' evangelical parroting of their words and phrases. [St. Hiram be praised] A commercial license is "cast aside" by the FCC with regard to the obtaining of an amateur radio license. The FCC has NEVER "cast aside" my First 'Phone nor subsequent GROL. It is still in the FCC URL records and still current. The requirements for an amateur radio license are all explained in Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97.501 and following. The requirements for commercial radio operator licenses are given in regulations of Title 47 C.F.R. Part 13. Do you understand these instructions as they have been explained to you? If not, the court will appoint an attorney to assist you. You would have to meet the same amateur radio licensing requirements as anyone else before you'd be issued an amateur license. I've not said anything to the contrary. The LAW is quite clear enough on the issue of civil US radio. You seem confused as to the differences of LAW and your imaginings. YOU are NOT any law official. You are merely officious. I'll try to make this as uncomplicated as I can, Len: You would be able to operate an amateur radio station in the amateur bands. I am quite able to "operate an amateur radio station." With or without a license. You failed (once more) to make your point that it would be ILLEGAL to operate AS IF one were a licensed radio amateur if no US amateur radio license had been granted to that operator. Any radio operator license does NOT automatically ENABLE anyone to "operate an amateur radio station." ABILITY of anyone to "operate an amateur radio station" has nothing at all to do with licensing. The license is merely an AUTHORIZATION by the US federal government to operate. Do you understand the definition as it has been explained to you? If not, the court will appoint a dictionary to assist you. As they said in the TV control booth, "Take Black." In this case "Black's Law Dictionary." :-) As interesting as I find your statement, one who expresses interest in amateur radio, haunts an amateur radio newsgroup and boast that he is going to get the top license immediately must have found a reason to obtain an amateur radio license. No "BOAST" was ever made. I do not "HAUNT." I may PLAY at being a ghost on Halloween...and have. Boooo! I "express an interest" in ALL radio. So much so that I made electronics and radio a life career early- on, despite having an aptitude for (called "talent") and experience IN commercial illustration ("art" where the artist draws/paints/inks things as they really are). Why do YOU attempt constant "haunting" of anyone who does not agree with your mighty claims and boasts of "radio operation" to/from faraway lands? Why not tell us what you perceived your need to be? Why indeed? Have you understood my previous explanations as I've explained them to you? If not, the court will appoint a psychiatrist to assist you. You could live in a gated community with country club privileges. I live (in the southern house) back-yard to back-yard with a gated community called "Montelena." 44 homes built on 15 acres of what was undeveloped wilderness. That community has NO "country club" there. You could wear Gucci loafers and sip Campari in an ultra-expensive night spot. ? Is that one of your "requirements" for amateur radio? Strange. Strange. You cold live in an area which fights tooth and nail to prevent zoning changes which would change the neighborhood or you could belong to that very exclusive group of newsgroup crackpots which plagues groups in which it does not participate. Are you suffering from a plague? See medical assistance as soon as possible! Are you suffering from plaque? Seek dental assistance as soon as possible. "Fighting tooth and nail?" No nails were used in the attempt to change a local zoning board ruling, just the democratic processes of the neighborhood getting together (also meeting at the local church), petitioning, then speaking before the zoning commission in public. Neither were "teeth" involved. See your dentist regularly for better oral hygience. That will help keep your dentures in place when you snarl and grimace so much. Especially when you boil over and shout. That SINGLE LOCAL zoning incident resulted in a change from residential single-family homes to residential multiple family (apartments, condos, etc) homes. The gated community you and Miccolis refer to is the "Montelena" I mentioned above...which has only single-family homes now. Nothing whatsoever in that alleged "tooth and nail" debate involved any "radio" subjects, not even TV cable or satellite down- link, certainly not amateur radio antenna installations. Now, if your parroting Miccolis MANUFACTURED moral-ethical "fault" would stop we might all learn to get along. That was NOT a "radio" issue of any kind. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with "radio," either amateur or commercial. Do you understand those explanations as they have been given you? If not the court will appoint a two-by-four to lay across your head at no cost to you. Then you might have misdirected your haunting of newsgroups. Tsk. You don't have a ghost of a chance of understanding anything but "professional amateurism," do you? :-) It isn't up to you to worry over someone who uses his amateur radio callsign, Len. NO "worrying" was done. :-) A high degree of persistence in advocacy of eliminating the morse code test from license testing done over a period greater than two decades was done. That was just a POLITICAL matter that was finally settled by FCC 06-178 released on 15 Dec 06. Do you understand those explanations as they've been explained to you? If not the court will appoint someone of sound mind to attempt making you understand. You aren't involved. Yes, I was quite involved. FCC 06-178 resulted on the part of thousands who "involved" themselves in making their lawful comments to the US federal government. The code test for any class amateur radio license in the USA will be GONE very soon. Do you understand FCC Reports and Orders as they've been explained to you? If not, the court will appoint a federal attorney to explain the Consitution of the US and basic civics to you. Your plaintive cries over pretend significance and enlarged egos are those of an outsider shouting, "but look at what I've done!" I've never worked Frenchmen out of band. I've never had to "synchronize teleprinters" by means of on-off keying morse code in the 1980s. I've never served in the State Department and bragged about BEING "DX." Your continuing PRETENSE at being a near-equivalent god of radio through amateurism has been duly noted. By all readers of this newsgroup. You are able to have all of the fun you are capable of having by tinkering with electronics. "Tinkering?" :-) A working career that included duties of responsible project engineer is just "tinkering?!?" :-) That isn't amateur radio, but why let that bother you? "Amateur" is a regulatory definition of one who engages in an activity WITHOUT monetary compensation. That is ALSO the definition of a HOBBY. HOBBY. LICENSED amateur radio is what you should have written. LICENSED, AUTHORIZED by the only civil radio regulatory agency of the United States government. Have you under- stood the definitions as they were explained to you? If not, the court may appoint a bailiff to place you under arrest until medical science has come up with an explanation for your serious mental confusion. Lots of folks who aren't radio amateurs enjoy electronics. ...and you think ALL of them are monetarily compensated if they do not have federal authorization to transmit RF on certain bands with certain modulation modes according to federal regulations? Not so. See? That is your extreme CONFUSION. You mistakenly label "radio amateurs" as ONLY the "licensed." Your EGO has given way to logic and reason...but, then, everyone has already seen that... Is that sig of yours a misuse of honors or a copycatting of pretend significance? My end-of-message IDENTIFICATION is merely an E-MAIL FORWARDING ALIAS. See the header "From" line. My professional association (IEEE, 34 years) provides that forwarding alias free of charge to all IEEE Members. That one-way forwarding alias includes some "spam" filtering as an extra "filter" to remove unwanted advertising e-mail. Such a forwarding alias in little different than that used by the ARRL for amateur radio members, conveying no more significance than any other forwarding alias. Do you understand this e-mail forwarding definition as it has been explained to you? If not, the court will appoint yet another dead horse for you to beat upon. [...and the beat goes on...] LA |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
|
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
|
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
|
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:38:16 GMT
wrote: From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:16:22 GMT wrote: My statement is correct. N2EY has never been other than civilized with you. Which "civilization" are you talking about? :-) Some Amazon River backwoods tribe using curare darts? His demeanor is in direct contrast with yours, especially when you reply to him. Cranky has a psychological problem involving pedantry and religious transgendering. His problem, not mine. Your problem is much deeper. However, it MIGHT be alleviated by your taking some Anger Management counseling. My statement is correct. The overwhelming majority of posters to this newsgroup are licensed radio amateurs. Should I be "overwhelmed?" :-) I'm not. In here I'm not in the presence of gods, only some cranky "superior" wannabes trying to push others around. "Precious" can be applied to a pair of cute 4-year-olds who each got an amateur radio license in 1998. The word "precious" may be applied to numerous things. So, you still believe that pre-kindergarten 4-year-olds have sufficient English comprehension to take and pass written test elements for an amateur radio license? :-) Good luck on that one, now. A newsgroup is NOT amateur radio. That's correct. This particular newsgroup deals with amateur radio. So do several other newsgroups. However, NONE of them seem to be concerned with getting anyone licensed in the amateur radio service of the United States. That was the point of "John Smith I" first posting in this thread. So far, all that seems to be "dealt" is a bunch of middle- school-minded macho adolescents busy tossing filth and sexual innuendo around...or some olde-tyme "superiority" fossils busy berating others and/or trying to push others around. On the whole, this newsgroup doesn't seem to be dealing at all well with amateur radio. You have NO AUTHORITY to demand all in here be licensed for anything. I've never made a demand that you obtain an amateur radio license. That's obviously INCORRECT. YOU have wasted much memory space with constant sniping, back-biting, arrogant posturing (mostly on your alleged "superiority"), and constant fabrication of others' "faults" which were no faults, only differences of opinion. In fact, I much prefer that you didn't. You seem to desire that in ALL your newsgroup opponents. Is that the very model of modern morseman amateur? To restrict the PUBLIC airways of anyone but your own cozy little clique of hive-mind hammatures? Yes, it does appear to be so! :-) Precisely. You have yet to become a radio amateur. When and if you ever obtain such a license, you'll be a new amateur radio op. You are CONSTANTLY dwelling on "new ops" as if that were some kind of pejorative. Why? Is it because the FCC will no longer have morse code testing as a necessity to become a licensed radio amateur? Or are those your own personal issues which might be alleviated by Anger Management counseling? Maybe it is some kind of EGO thing, one of your imagining you are always "superior" to those YOU consider "inferior?" Oh, my, it seems like you have MANY personal issues! I don't care about it, Len. It isn't an amateur radio license. In amateur radio, it qualifies you for nothing. INCORRECT. MISTAKE. FAULTY. A commercial radio operator license enables any grantee to operate a transmitter on MORE of the EM spectrum, using MORE modes than are allocated to radio amateurs. That involves radio technologies which have yet to be adapted by the "amateur community." By human-made LAW at the federal level, licensed amateurs are restricted to LAW-specified frequency bands and only certain, specified modes of operation and modulation. Radio amateurs cannot broadcast, cannot get monetary compensation for their radio activies (some rare exceptions such as in Part 97.113 (d)), cannot permit anyone but a licensed control operator to operate their (or other amateur) station transmitters. Note the use of "human- made" as a descriptor. The LAW came into being as a political thing, not some divine edict in which (licensed) radio amateurs are somehow "superior" to all others. What was made by humans can be deleted by humans. FCC 06-178 is as lawful as any other US amateur radio service regulation and it has deleted your cherished code test. I could go on and on about my technical-operational back- ground but you would simply dismiss it in your usual arrogant "superior" manner as if it were "nothing." You just did that above. This only demonstrates your spiteful selfish desire to be some kind of "superior" over others, amply demonstrated in here for years. Now how do you think that looks to those who are really new to radio, any kind of radio? Do you think they will worship you at your feet AS IF you were some god of radio? Do you think it makes them proud just to be in the same newsgroup with you? If you do, then you've got a really bad case of Superiority Complex all mixed up with an even larger Inferiority Complex. A complex confusion. I predict that you will never obtain an amateur radio license during your lifetime. It's irrelevant as to whatever I do. If you keep on treating me as something worse than dirt, then others will think that you will treat them as dirt, or worse. They will get the (demonstratably correct) idea that ALL olde-tyme morsemen are elite snobs looking down on "lesser beings." NOT a good attitude. Your constant prodding, poking, sneering, and general un- wholesome behavior about "newbies" and "neophytes" makes it clear that YOUR motivation is merely to make fun of, to ridicule and demean all your newsgroup opponents. You are trying to "set up" some kind of future commentary. That's so predictable that you might as well make graphics lighted by neon. For example, in my case, three possible courses of your future action: 1. I take no action towards getting an amateur radio license: No change in your attitude, the same manufactured "faults" you've been expressing all along, a constant barrage of snide snarly remarks about "long interest" and "no action." 2. I try testing and fail any element: Accusations of "stupdity," "inability to be as good as four-year-olds," and general cat-calling of a most uncivil nature. A general set of uncomplimentary remarks including charges of an "age" nature. 3. I try and succeed: Modified accusations, now along the lines of snide, snarly, berating comments about "why didn't I do that 'sooner?'" That would be followed by a "lecture" of how I was "supposed to have gotten an amateur license 'first'!" For any of the three possible scenarios I would proceed on my own, for me, NOT on any remarks from a suspected insane individual such as yourself. You're the biggest control freak of all, Len. You want to control regulations in something in which you play no part. My advocacy of eliminating the code test was about GETTING INTO amateur radio. The FCC did eliminate that code test effect 23 Feb 07. Thousands commented to the FCC about eliminating that code test, including myself. There is NO LAW WHATSOEVER that restricted such commentary to ONLY licensed persons in a particular civil radio service. Do YOU spend all your time GETTING INTO amateur radio through taking morse code tests? I don't think so. YOU spend an inordinate amount of time trying to accuse others of pushing YOU around! Oh, my, who could EVER DARE push Heil around?!? Why you would just fabricate some "faults" of theirs and try to get others to believe that! You've told us about the "sow" you've eaten in recent months. INCORRECT. The FDA does not require labeling of ham as to the gender of the animal butchered and packed. A definition of ham: "The butchered meat of swine." You're still at the starting line, Len. IMPOSSIBLE. The only "starting line" in radio happened in either Switzerland of 1895 or Italy of 1896, both done by Guglielmo Marconi. That is historical fact. The only dispute there is Marconi's experiments (few records were kept) in Switzerland in 1895. Popov in Russia demonstrated radio as a communications medium in 1896. "Amateur radio" in the USA was legalized in 1912 with the first US radio regulating agency. That defined "amateur" as opposed to commercial or professional radio. The FCC was created by an Act of Congress in 1934. I was a radio-electronics hobbyist in 1947, became a military-professional in HF radio in 1953, was granted a commercial radio operator license in 1956, was given first radio engineering design responsibility in 1962. Is that your quaint "superior" arrogance in saying I was NOT at ANY "starting line" in the past? Is amateur radio some kind of unique physics phenomenon that is totally unlike all other radio? It isn't. Why do you persist in trying to say that? You must be INSANE. I am not licensed to counsel the INSANE. While I enjoy fruitcake, you are not of good taste. Get your own handlers. All the civil radio services will continue as they have been doing regardless of what you spout in here. ["signature" omitted due to upset of the great Heil in others belonging to a professional association he cannot be a part of] |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
|
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
From: Dave Heil on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 05:35:35 GMT
wrote: From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:38:16 GMT wrote: From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:16:22 GMT wrote: I didn't write "civilization", Leonard. I wrote "civilized." You pedant in your pants again... :-) No, Len, he doesn't. You've insulted him as if he does. That is one of your several problems. Who doesn't? Who was "insulted?" What problems? You're being wishy-washy again. I shower regularly. Isn't that the usual result? :-) Are you getting nervous? Do you want a Don Knotts impersonation? You will have to pay a minimum of scale rate. Guild rules... Nobody supports the Roger Wisemans of the world even if he somehow obtained an amateur radio license. He's mentally ill. Am I supposed to discuss this "Roger Wisemans?" How did this person enter your Dali-esque fantasy world? Please publish your Regulations on newsgroup behavior so that Paul Schleck can take it up with the moderators. That's a good little Kommandant. Seig Heil! You're a big part of the sludge, Len. What "sludge?" Your waste matter?!? Don't lump yourself with ALL newsgroup opponents, Len. I wrote about you and I meant you. You seem confused. A few sentences ago you were talking about some "Roger Wisemans." Try to stay focussed. I wrote about you, Len, not anyone but my own cozy little clique. Ah! So you ADMIT to being in a cozy little clique! The fact is, I'd really prefer that you not be licensed--just you. Tsk. You should write the FCC and inform them of your ORDER, Herr Kommandant. Someone beginning something is new at it. You are still new at being a human being in groups outside of your cozy little clique. That has nothing to do with it. All Morse Code tested amateur radio licensees were new when they first obtained a license. All non-Morse Code tested ops will be new when they are first licensed. You say "all morse code tested amateur radio licensees..." then say "all non-morse code tested ops." Why do you say that non-morse code tested licensees are NOT licensed? I'm superior to some in certain areas. That seems to be ALL areas. :-) I'm inferior to others. Impossible! The Grate Heil is great at ALL things amateur! It really seems to bother you that you could be green at something. Tsk, I'm not green at operating a radio. :-) ...and I'm being told so by a guy with an inferiority complex. Who is that? Are you back to talking about this "Roger Wisemans?" Most confusing you are said Yoda Right. You aren't authorized to operate an amateur radio station in those places. Which "places?" I am forbidden to operate a radio on a test bench with a dummy load? :-) And for some dummy of an amateur extra who doesn't know how to set up a bench test? :-) Other than Todd O'What's-his-face and the former holder of the K1MAN callsign, what radio amateur is spending his time thinking that he's a broadcaster? What are you going on about? Do about what? You keep reminding me I am "not licensed." Do you expect ME to do your dirty work for you, Herr Kommandant? You're still on the outside, looking in. Incorrect. I am inside and looking at a computer screen. It isn't anything to the FCC. They still expect you to pass all the exams required for a particular class of license if you are to be issued one. The FCC "expects me to pass some exams?" They haven't informed me about that. Maybe you should remind Kevin at your regular business lunch there in DC? Like I said, Len, I don't care if you ever obtain an amateur ticket. You "don't care?!?" After ALL those words berating me? Tsk, tsk. You must CARE very deeply when you go on and on and on and on and on about it... Do it now. Take the test now. All four elements that includes the code test? :-) Hmmm...its about 10:45 PM local here...I don't know of any 24/7 VEC exam places that are open in southern California now. If you want to become a radio amateur, don't wait, don't waste precious years waffling. I wasn't really planning a third career as an IHOP cook... You don't need to read this newsgroup. You keep saying that... :-) I don't spend my days wondering or worrying if some potential new ham is going to be proud of me. You expect all to immediately recognize you innate grandness, a sort of "divine right of kings" or something. Yes, that is perfectly clear. It's relevant. You said that I couldn't foretell the future. We'll wait for a bit and we'll find out. Maybe I'm a seer. You have a sneer. Tsk, tsk. They might get the idea that I don't care for you. Yas, yas, you state the obvious. :-) Besides, I've addressed them above. "Addressed?" To whom? "Roger Wisemans?" Tsk, make a clear point. You ramble so. According to you, as soon as the Morse Test is gone, you're history. I am "history?" In which book of history am I? Am I on a film or TV documentary? Tsk, you keep saying I "make mistakes." Now you want me gone and say I speak the "truth" about "going?" Which is it? You contradict yourself. As I've said, Len, given the way you act, I prefer if you don't obtain an amateur radio license. Awwww...that wouldn't have anything to do with my not heaping gratuitous praise on your mighty diplomatic mission in Guinea-Bisseau, would it? How about not appreciating your "synchonizing your tele- printers using CW?" [teleprinters have always been designed to self-synchronize] How about my not praising you to the skies for "receiving 'combat pay'" in Vietnam when you've never been in combat? I'd probably think more of you if you took and passed an exam for any class amateur radio exam. The "sooner" doesn't matter. Now, now, you contradict yourself again. You just said your couldn't care less if I didn't become a licensed radio amateur. Try to keep your sneering arrogant commentary on-track, OK? The time you wasted typing your fingers to the bone here in r.r.a.p. is your time. Tsk, I've never "typed fingers to the bone." Skin has always been intact. 22 years and many millions of characters later, my fingers are still intact. You wasted it. I eliminate waste regularly. Remember, move your vowels every day or you will get consonated... You've taken longer to get into amateur radio than any individual I've heard of. You, of course, have "heard of all." :-) [all gods of radio are that way...] My advocacy in here has always been to eliminate the code test in any amateur radio license test. Yet, you are still confused about that. Doesn't that give you some inclination that something is wrong with YOU? Don't you think I could pass, Len? Not as a human being... As an Otto Preminger impersonator, yes, if you lost some weight. "Stalag 17" was a stage play before it was a movie. Keep hoping for a production near you on that and go to the audition. I'm sure you could impress the producers into giving that part to you. I've spent no time accusing others of pushing me around. True. You simply push others around. QED. Who is capable of pushing me around? The FCC? Am I going to be searching for my teeth? I don't know. Did you lose them AGAIN? No one needs fabricate faults of yours, Len. San Andreas kept denying HIS fault and look what happened... You're no closer to an amateur radio license than you were decades back. Tsk, you keep saying I was after an amateur radio license. I kept stating what my advocacy was. You keep on with your fabrication of "my desires." :-) You see nothing wrong with your actions? Oh, my, you ARE confused on what is happening. You're no closer than you were over ten years ago when you began posting to r.r.a.p. INCORRECT. FAULTY. MISTAKE. Hello, didn't you read FCC 06-178? It will order the removal of morse code testing from amateur radio license testing effective 23 February 2007. Sunnuvagun! SUCCESS!!! :-) Poor baby. Don't cry... [end-of-message identification removed because of some who cannot belong to my professional association and get all snippy and snotty about it...] |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 6, 5:25�pm, Leo wrote:
On 5 Feb 2007 15:43:57 -0800, wrote: On Feb 4, 9:21?am, Leo wrote: On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote: On Feb 1, wrote: On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote: On Feb 1, wrote: Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his misinformation? I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. *orks on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *very time - without fail! That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo". But you will not admit it. Please demonstrate! It's already been demonstrated many times, "Leo". K8MN wrote: "Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his misinformation?" Which is exactly what Len does: posts misinformation (factual errors). And you ("Leo") replied: "I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure." Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some would call that "lying", btw. Some might call that "the lure".... :) Some might do that. But, by definition, if a person intentionally makes an untrue statement, intending to deceive, that person is telling a lie. So what you are saying is that Len tells lies in order to "lure" others. Myself, I have never referred to anyone here as a liar, nor their statements as lies. Mistakes or errors, yes, but not lies. Then you wrote: "Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *very time - without fail!" Note that last sentence: "Every time - without fail!" All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those postings. Factual errors according to whom? According to objective reality. Unsubstantiated. NMP With reference to what source? Objective sources. Unsubstantiated. NMP In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction? Reality does that. Unsubstantiated. NMP For example, suppose someone stated that the distance from Tokyo, Japan, to Vladivostok, Russia, was 500 miles. That statement could be checked against paper maps, atlases, online mapping resources, etc. It turns out that the actual distance between those cities is more than 660 miles. Objective reality shows that the person who stated "500 miles" made a factual error. A mistake. See how easy that is? It's not a matter of belief or opinion, but of objective reality. Oversimplification. How is that an oversimplification? Is the distance from Tokyo, Japan to Vladivostok 500 miles or more than 660 miles - or some other distance? In objective reality, it cannot be both 500 miles and more than 660 miles at the same time. You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you? Not handy ;-) I thought not! *Unsubstantiated. NMP It would save a lot of time looking them all up again! Then note how few of his factual errors I have actually challenged/ corrected here. ...if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it would be appreciated! :) *pecifics would be nice, too. "There's a flaw in your cunning plan, Baldrick!" Although the number of Len's factual errors here is considerable, it is by no means beyond my capabilities to provide a total, and specifics. Apparently, it is - as you have not done so. That's incorrect. The fact that I have not done something does not mean it is beyond my capabilities. I have not eaten any ice cream today, but it is not beyond my capabilities to eat some before today ends. However, that would be counterproductive. It would be counterproductive to prove your point? It would be counterproductive to give a total. *Not much of a point, then. Then why are you disputing it? Because as soon as I did so, you would say that I had taken the lure and verified your claim of "Every time - without fail!" Only if you 'took the bait' on all of them - which is likely true, as you have no examples which would prove otherwise. I have examples. If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point? IOW, you would say that once I provide details of a factual error made by Len, it is no longer a factual error that I let pass, and instead became one more "lure" that I went after. Sounds like a guy who cannot offer any proof to the contrary to me. * Nope. It's someone who has seen and avoided the flaw in your cunning plan. If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point? Of course some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you. Evasive. *Still not a single example, so far! If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point? So the only way for me to prove that your claim of "Every time - without fail!" is false, is for me to leave at least some of Len's factual errors alone. Which I have already done. Not yet, you haven't. * Yes, I have. I have left some of Len's factual errors uncorrected. Doing that proves my point! All you have done so far is avoid proving your point! NMP Now of course someone else could come along and point out one or more of Len's factual errors here, and then show that I had left those error(s) alone. ?? Think about it. But then you could claim that the reason I left those error(s) alone was that I had not identified it/them as factual error(s) in the first place. ?? And again, some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you. ...so there is no evidence to disprove my claim, is there? Yes, there is. All you have to do is look at Len's postings, note the factual errors, and then look up which errors I have corrected and not corrected. *I thought not. You thought wrong. NMP Therefore, your claim of "Every time - without fail!" has already been demonstrated to be false. Which it has. Not. NMP Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement is simply conjecture. If I were to fall for your cunning plan, you would immediately disqualify any specific example I would give, by employing the discussion listed above. If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point? ...so there isn't any proff that I'm wrong, is there? *:) There's plenty of proof. You're not willing to look at it. Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here. I'll bet he'd be crushed! :) He certainly gets upset enough over them. A mature person would simply accept the corrections and say thank you to the person who pointed out the factual error. LOL! *You're his playtoy! Not at all. I post a few words. He posts a bunch of paragraphs in response. I am civilized and well behaved, he is out of control. There's your demonstration. Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate your claim. Yes, I have. To say more would be to fall victim to your cunning plan. So there really isn't any proof that I'm incorrect, is there? Yes, there is. I thought not (again!) You thought wrong - (again)! Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can. Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim. Maybe not for you. Others have a very different experience. Please provise substantiation for this claim too! I have a different experience. Just a form of censorship imposed on others by those who like censorship. Not according to the definition of "censorship". A moderator blocking posts from others because someone finds them offensive isn't censorship? * No, it's not. Check your dictionary. LOL! *moderated group would not suit your purpose either! Actually, it would. Apparently not - you need RRAP! Not really. I participate in several moderated email reflectors. They work and are lots of fun. Those are reflectors, not groups. There's no real difference to the users who want to have real discussions. Where else could you go but here to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all wrongs'? "pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all wrongs'?"? That's not me at all. Sure doesn't play out that way on RRAP......LOL! Promoting accuracy is pathological? I'm simply correcting some of Len's errors and expressing an opinion. Some of? *LOL! Yes, some of. Len makes more errors than I correct. That really bothers him. Does it? Yes. *ROTFLMAO! NMP Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here? nd encourage everyone to join them? I don't recall - who was that? Selective memory - no wonder you can't recall responding to all of Len's posts! *In fact, you replied to many of Mike's posts on this subject. *LOL! Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back! Or maybe it didn't work. They never do! Moderated reflectors work. Why shouldn't moderated newsgroups? WHat's the big difference? You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever wonder why? Actually, I have left rrap for months at a time, except to post the ARS license numbers. Check out google for my posting history. Immaterial. *Everyone left here for months at a time due to the 'QRM' from the resident psychos. Incorrect. If *everyone* left rrap, there would have been no postings to rrap at all. And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either. Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is intentionally post misinformation? Nope. LOL! Len doesn't always post misinformation. Some of what he writes is actually true! Correct. *(.....finally!) And it is you, not I, that says his factual errors are intentional. LOL! Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not come from Len himself? Look it up. It was a rhetorical question - he of course said that! *Don't you remember? I remember. You are the one who asked the question. How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not misinformation? I presumed that Len told the truth. Why? Did I make a mistake in assuming that Len would tell the truth? You start off most of your posts to Len with the words "You're wrong....". * That's incorrect, Leo....;-) Why would you presume that he is stating fact this time? Benefit of the doubt. Is it wrong to assume that Len would tell the truth? Are you stupid? No, Leo. Are *you* stupid? Is that wrong? That's nonsensical - based on your past history. *Magical, actually. It's nonsensical/magical to assume Len would tell the truth? Perhaps you are right, Leo. Based on *Len's* past history, it may really *be* nonsensical to assume he is telling the truth. That's magical! :) You're saying it's magic if Len tells the truth here? That it is more logical to think that Len is telling untruths than to think that he is telling the truth? Interesting. Your conclusion is indeed magical. * Which conclusion? Are you trying to lure Len into one of his rants against you? Nonsensical question. That's your job, not mine! *LOL! Perhaps you and Len are the same person "Leo". There is no proof that you are not. So it's really a moot point, "Leo". Perhaps.... We will see. All we have seen so far is that you have nothing to offer to substantiate your claims. Who is "we"? *As usual. *Your entire post above contains no fact, no rebuttal, and no *proof - just conjecture and unsubstantiated claims - and an expectation that others will do your research for you. If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point? Which, of course, will not ... Not My Problem! |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
On Feb 5, 6:12�pm, "
wrote: * *Most of these "old regulars" love to heap abuse on * *me, Len old chap, Am I one of those "old regulars" who "heap abuse" on you? If so, could you give an objective example of a posting where I did so? Thanks a heap. Jim, N2EY |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
wrote:
could you give an objective example of a posting where I did so? I believe Len's definition of "abuse" is any statement that disagrees with something he states. As a vat of wisdom with "years" of experience as a commercial radio operator, us lowly 'amateurs' are supposed to bow down to his 'professional' greatness. 73 kh6hz |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:
....nothing but evasive drivel. Entire post skipped! 73, Leo |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:42:00 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:40:01 -0500, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: ...nothing but evasive drivel. Entire post skipped! evasice drivel is the Hallmark of the Procoders It's certainly the hallmark of this one - nothing useful to say, but he says it anyway! :) 73, Leo http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ 73, Leo |
Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
"Leo" wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:42:00 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:40:01 -0500, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: ...nothing but evasive drivel. Entire post skipped! evasice drivel is the Hallmark of the Procoders It's certainly the hallmark of this one - nothing useful to say, but he says it anyway! :) Mindless drivel is, however, the trademark of Mark Morgan. -- sugn you name to something |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com